Comments on: Sure We’re Green. But Kids Are More Important Than The Planet

By: Dogess

Dogess — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 21:07:24 +0000

I’m childfree mainly for personal reasons (just don’t like kids). However I have always said that if I did want them, I’d adopt even if I could have my own due to there already being people who need a home and enough people on the planet. There’s also medical reasons for why I would like my gene pool to dry up.

By: Mel

Mel — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:17:36 +0000

Yeah, I’m not childfree for environmental reasons, but I mostly noticed the biased tone of the article and of course, all the snippy and misinformed comments. It never ceases to amaze me how narrow-minded people can be.

By: m

Thu, 29 Nov 2007 00:51:56 +0000

I didn’t read the article, but I wanted to add to the discussion that though my reasons for being childfree are not entirely environmental and societal, my reasons for choosing to not have biological children are close to, it not 100%, environmental (overpop.) and societal (wanting to give a home to a child without parents instead of adding more kids to ones already in existence).

If I decided to be a parent, I’d go with adoption for the reasons above, so that choice is purely due to concern for society and not for reasons of personal preference. Or perhaps as an alternative, I’d consider fostering, which would be based on both societal and personal reason for me.

As for being childfree, yes, many of the reasons for it for me are personal ones, but environmental/societal factors weigh heavily in the decision, too. From what I’ve heard from other childfree people, such issues do often play some role in people’s consideration of the issue.

By: Britgirl

Britgirl — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 21:10:25 +0000

Chris W - You are correct. Thanks for mentionining this key point. The whole article was written with a biased slant, an almost sneering tone with regards to the women who’d decided to be childfree. I noted it but decided to place it to one side, because it’s almost a whole other topic to address. And that topic is the distrust I have of any mainstream media stories about childfree people written by non-childfree people because of their biased slant which comes across loud and clear. Watch this space.

CFSince6 - Correct on all counts. The bias is very much there - and not even particularly subtle - unless the writer thinks they are being so. I forced myself to read most of it - because I wanted to write about it. Reading how difficult it was for the woman to get a tubal incensed me…. that even today women are still subject to the personal beliefs and whims of others as to what control they should have over their reproduction.

As for the environment issue…. it’s interesting seeing the childed trying to justify that them having more children actually helps.

By: CFSinceSix

CFSinceSix — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 20:05:05 +0000

Like you, BritGirl, my reason for not bearing children has nothing to do with the environment. Still doesn’t.

But when you account for parents and their children, the resources they use, the waste products they produce … there is NO WAY a family with children is more environmentally friendly than a child free person is.

I read the original article. I didn’t finish it. Chris W. You’re right, there is a biased slant. It’s in the language used - and it’s subtle but it’s still very there. I couldn’t finish reading it because of that. The author’s bias and opinions about the CF are loud and clear - and it’s not friendly. Further, reading about the first woman and what she had to endure trying to get a tubal made me angry because I went through the exact same things.

By: GottabeMe

GottabeMe — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 20:14:00 +0000

I really enjoy your blog! I’ve found so many great CF blogs that I’ve decided to start my own, I hope you don’t mind that I linked to you. I hope you stop by!

By: Chris W

Chris W — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 03:25:30 +0000

I read the article. For some odd reason, it doesn’t sound like an unbiased article… just from the tone in which it’s written. On the surface, unbiased. But it smacks a bit of sensationalism on the “saving the world through being childfree” theme.

If saving the world was first on the list of priorities for the subjects of the article, well I feel that’s way cool. However, being childfree is usually a highly personal decision first, societal decision second (or third).

But, well, maybe I’m wrong.

I did like reading all of the comments regarding it. The childfree-supporting voices were of course nowhere near as unbalanced as the ones telling the subjects to “Consider suicide pacts to further save the earth”.